San Francisco Authorities Shun Frankenfoods &
Call for City-WideTransition to Organic

Two articles Included

1. San Francisco Panel Wants City to Go Organic
Resolution urges rejection of genetically engineered food at events
2. City panel fights 'Frankenfoods

San Francisco Panel Wants City to Go Organic
Resolution urges rejection of genetically engineered food at events

Tom Zoellner, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
June 21, 2000

San Francisco -- San Francisco city officials yesterday took a bite-sized
move toward rejecting genetically engineered foods by urging city purchasers
to favor organic food vendors.

The Planning and Policy Committee of the city's Commission on the
Environment unanimously passed an unusual resolution that urges all city
departments to give preferential treatment to organic food vendors when the
city awards catering contracts for special parties and events.

Caterers who avoid genetically engineered food -- known to its foes as
``Frankenfood'' -- would also get an advantage over competitors.

The resolution, which does not carry the force of law, is likely to pass the
full Commission of the Environment, said President Randall Hayes. From
there, it must get the approval of the city Board of Supervisors.

The measure won applause from Simon Harris of the Organic Consumers
Association. He said scientific testing of engineered foods from the federal
Food and Drug Administration has been lax, and the public could be exposed
to unknown culinary dangers.

``The primary goal of the U.S. government is to rush these foods to the
supermarket shelves as quickly as possible with a minimum amount of
testing,'' he said.

But one lobbyist from the grocery industry said the resolution was
overcautious and could hinder the advancement of foods genetically altered
to include vaccines and vitamins, creating products that can benefit poor
countries.

``Efforts like this take the technology a step backward,'' said Lance
Hastings, of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

The push to label genetically altered food in San Francisco is an outgrowth
of a nascent drive to pass similar laws on the state level.

This April in Sacramento, the Senate agricultural committee rejected a
proposal from Los Angeles Democratic Sen. Tom Hayden to require all grocery
stores and restaurants in California to label products that had genetically
modified ingredients.

Local representatives from Greenpeace helped shape the language of the
proposed resolution, said commission member Parin Shah, adding that similar
resolutions have been introduced in Santa Cruz, Berkeley and Boston.

In Berkeley, the school district has a policy-mandated goal of serving
organic foods in its cafeterias.

San Francisco's resolution would call upon elected city officials to urge
the federal government to label genetically engineered foods until they have
been proved safe.

City panel fights 'Frankenfoods

by Demian Bulwa, Examiner Staff Writer
San Francisco Examiner
June 21, 2000

Ordinance would favor vendors using organic foods, urge labeling
restrictions

The City took one small step toward one of the strongest stances in the
nation shunning bioengineered crops - and one giant leap into a growing
furor.

Three members of San Francisco's Commission on the Environment on Tuesday
agreed to push an ordinance that would, among other things, favor hiring
food vendors who use only organic foods during city business or during
events on city property.

The ordinance also calls for The City to urge federal regulators to require
manufacturers to clearly label all genetically modified foods on store
shelves, and even slap a moratorium on their sale until they are "thoroughly
researched" for possible risks.

"We wanted to do more than just some fluffy public-awareness campaign," said
commissioner Parin Shah. "We still feel like there are a lot of unanswered
questions about these foods."

Tuesday's recommendation - which also urged the school district to serve
organic lunches - came after a meeting of the commission's Planning and
Policy Committee. The full, seven-member commission will review the
ordinance July 17, and then the Board of Supervisors could weigh in.

The proposed ordinance comes amid growing debate over genetically altered
foods, which have flourished in the past decade. Last year, for example,
half of American soybean crops were bioengineered, according to the FDA.

Some environmentalists call them "Frankenfoods," claiming not enough testing
has been done to ensure the foods are safe for consumers and questioning
whether they harm the soil where they grow. Proponents argue the crops are
regulated, produce high yields, reduce pesticide use and offer potential
health benefits.

No one spoke against the ordinance Tuesday during public comments. But Lance
Hastings, director of state affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers of
America, said after the hearing that he strongly opposes it. He is concerned
that the bioengineering debate is "starting with the assumption that these
things are unsafe."

"This resolution says, 'Stop what you're doing and don't move forward,' "
said Hastings, who was at the meeting to speak on another agenda item. "If
you can add nutrients to foods, that's a good thing. That is often
forgotten."

Other cities around the nation have established less stringent ordinances
aimed at turning up a collective nose at bioengineered edibles.

Last August, Berkeley's school district became the first in the nation to
line its cafeteria menus with organic foods in a program targeting
elementary and middle school students who also do some of the planting and
harvesting.

At Tuesday's committee meeting, the three members also favored an ordinance
that would force beverage companies or vendors in The City to use plastic
containers made from at least 25 percent recycled material by the end of the
year. Committee members said they want to steer the plastics industry toward
"closed-loop" recycling and away from turning plastic containers into
products like rugs that cannot be recycled again.

Three plastics industry representatives at the meeting called the ordinance
unnecessary and said The City's energy would be better spent on public
education to increase recycling.

***************************************************************